Skip to content

fix typo in pin write up #36

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
conectado merged 1 commit into from
Jul 12, 2025
Merged

fix typo in pin write up #36

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion content/writeups/pin-is-neccesary.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Everything looks nice except for that `Pin::new_unchecked` which we created with

I've read a lot about how `async` creates internal state machines that keep self-referential structs that, if moved, everything could be disastrous.

But how does this look? How can we fail to enforce the safety requirements of `Pin`, specifically, with futues? Let's see what happens if you move a pinned value after it's created and polled!
But how does this look? How can we fail to enforce the safety requirements of `Pin`, specifically, with futures? Let's see what happens if you move a pinned value after it's created and polled!

Now let's rewrite this in the following way.

Expand Down